On 21 December, the government's Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000 will come into force. The Act is the result of a groundswell of business and consumer disquiet over the implications of data-gathering and administration regimes in the information age.
Especially in the land information sector, the new legislation is all about the effects of technology. Until comparatively recently, privacy in relation to land information was not seen as much of an issue. The information was mostly on paper and held in reasonable security; only the people who created it could access it. Even when it was converted into electronic form it was cumbersome, and not easy to get at.
The introduction, during the last decade, of technology with the ability to integrate and layer vast amounts of information has changed all that.
As a result, we will have new federal privacy laws, and spatial information bodies are asking what they will mean for the industry. Although the issue of privacy was discussed in an Australia New Zealand Land Information Council paper as far back as 1992, there has been little movement in the industry since then.
But in the wider community, things are moving on. There has been increasing pressure from lobby groups on all sides for the government to act. Finally, the government blueprint for a better privacy regime will take effect. Addressing the Privacy and Security in the Information Age Conference on 16 August, Attorney-General Daryl Williams said 'The challenge we all face is to take full advantage of the potential of the information age. But we need to do so in a way that protects the valuable information and databases that provide a competitive edge in the information economy.'
In a very real sense, the spatial industry is caught in a forked stick. Much of the effort during the last decade, of both public servants and vendors, has been spent on making land information more readily available. As a result, an increasing amount of state data is available at cost of extraction. Most state land organisations now have websites that anyone can access. The same applies to many local councils and many GIS managers in local government seem to think that's the way it should be.
But there is another side to the story. People are uneasy about privacy matters. Recent research commissioned by the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner found that over 90% of respondents wanted companies to ask their permission before using their personal details for marketing purposes. It found that about the same percentage wanted to know who would have access to their personal information and they wanted to know what it would be used for.
Suddenly, Big Brother is out there ... and watching.
One of the key players in amassing this information is the Australian Spatial Industry Business Association. Chair Tony Wheeler says ASIBA is very keen to contribute to the privacy debate. He concedes that the integration of one dataset with another can cause problems, but he cautions that a definition of privacy is a very fluid thing. 'In ten years' time, what we see as invasion of privacy now, we will probably ignore. Technology means that information is going to be out there and it's going to be accessible.'
However, the Privacy Commission's research underscores how important it is for the public to support the new regime. The study also confirmed that nearly half of those surveyed indicated that they would give companies incomplete or false information if they were not confident about how the information would be used. Over 40% said they would not deal with private sector organisations if they were not confident about those organisations' privacy practices.
This fear is not totally irrational. The electoral roll shows where I live. Local council and land registration bodies have information about properties I own. The rental bond board knows what properties I own and rent out. The credit card company knows where I shop, where I travel, what I eat, what kind of wine or spirits I prefer, what I do with my leisure and what doctors I visit, and what medication I take.
The transport authority has my photo, all my past addresses, and details of cars I currently own, and have owned before (drivers' licences in WA already contain a microchip which, by early next year, will carry vehicle and registration data).
The bank knows how much I earn and the extent of my mortgage and my address itself probably provides a reasonable insight into my social standing and my personal tastes, to the practised eye.
My phone records supply additional information about my habits, friends and associates and possibly my business(es). Soon my mobile phone or my travel smartcard will provide my current location, or tell you where I go and how I get there.
The police know about my criminal and/or driving record, medical authorities know all about my health, and the taxation department knows just about everything else there is to know about me.
Cameron Murphy, at the Council for Civil Liberties in Sydney, says modern technology is being used, and abused, by companies whose sole purpose is to gather information and combine all the bits to create profiles of individuals. Included in that, naturally, are details of assets, such as land or property.
He says large corporations such as banks, insurance companies, real estate companies and investment companies are the biggest users and abusers of such information databases.
Murphy says there is a general trend toward categorising people according to their spending habits, and then targeting them for a specific product or service. This kind of profiling is now an accepted part of marketing and advertising strategies in the business world.
He says that databases compiled by information businesses can be, and have been, used for many purposes. Often these are blatantly discriminatory. For instance, banks can use such profiles to determine the levels of service, or discounts, or even interest rates they offer to individual clients or of course, if they will offer any at all.
People are denied service on the basis of information on these lists. The days of the old-style 'credit check', where all a company needed to know was if you paid your bills, are long gone. They can now use a full profile to assess if a prospect is a good risk.
In his speech, Williams also drew attention to the fact that people's privacy concerns are also linked to their use of e-commerce.
'While we are working hard to ensure that Australia gets its privacy laws right, it is important to remember that this will amount to nothing if the systems within which information is stored are open to compromise. A public commitment to use personal information in accordance with a privacy policy is of Ltd use if the database is easily accessible to hackers.'
Thus, Williams argued, to the extent that plans for the economic improvement of the nation depend on the improved productivity of e-commerce, it is vital to allay consumer fears about privacy.
He says the new Act will go a long way towards doing that. Its aim is to meet the demands of consumers for more protection, and of business for more opportunity. 'It is important to note that the legislation is not overly prescriptive. The government is committed to ensuring a light touch and a co-regulatory regime,' he said.
The Act does not promote privacy as an absolute right. Exemptions in the Act recognise that the privacy of individuals needs to be balanced with other public interests. For example, the exemption for media organisations engaged in journalism recognises the importance of retaining the free flow of information to the Australian public.
The Act sets up a complaints-based regime overseen by the Privacy Commissioner. There are no detailed rules, procedures or reporting requirements that must be complied with from the start date.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the new privacy regime will adopt a couple of key concepts. One is the notion that data collected for one purpose should not be used for another. The Council for Civil Liberties says there is only a small number of people who have a legitimate right to know fundamental land ownership information, for instance. Those involved in conveyancing would be an obvious example.
However, it doesn't take much imagination to dream up scenarios where the lines get a little blurred. For instance, the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak in Britain caused authorities in Australia to look at their preparedness for a similar outbreak. They quickly came to the conclusion that a comprehensive land information system which contained every piece of available information about a parcel, including the owner, was essential for use by the authorities that would fight such an outbreak.
Even private individuals have good reason for wanting to know about land ownership. They may wish to make an approach to the owner of a neighbouring property about a tree that is encroaching, or undermining pipes.
It will be the role of the Privacy Commissioner to sort out such issues after complaints have arisen. As a result, there will be a continuing role for organisations such as ANZLIC and ASIBA to monitor the way privacy policy works, and to test it before the Privacy Commission.
A draft privacy policy was released by Land Victoria in July 2001; like the last definitive utterance from the industry the 1992 ANZLIC discussion paper it was in broad accord with Williams' statement of the government's position: there should be limits to the collection of personal data; any such data should be obtained lawfully and with the consent of the person; and the purposes for which the data is to be used should be specified at the time of collection. The data should be relevant to the purposes for which it is to be used, and it should be used only for the purposes indicated. Personal data should not be disclosed or made available to anyone without consent of the data subject, except by the authority of law, and should be protected against loss or unauthorised access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure.
The introduction to the paper continued: 'While the potential conflict between protecting privacy and using data efficiently can be seen as the main barrier to the development of universally acceptable policies and guidelines, it can also be suggested that it provides a catalyst for reconciling opposing interests.'
The potential for abuse of information was also acknowledged. As the number of land datasets increased and people became more aware of them, new opportunities would emerge for the expanded use, and therefore also the possibility of abuse, of land information, it said.
The implication of this ad hoc approach to privacy is that many players will have to wait and see what the effect on their business will be. On the other hand, the legislation is likely to be relatively flexible, and in tune with public attitudes as to what is reasonable. In the long run, public perception of what is reasonable may be the over-riding consideration.
